MINUTES

A. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

B. ROLL CALL

Roll call showed the following Directors present: Whitney, Monteleone, Orth, and Estabrook. Also present were General Manager Chapman and District Counsel Neary.

C. ADDITIONS/ ADJUSTMENTS TO THE AGENDA

Director Orth asked that consideration of a letter to Governor Gray Davis in support of funds for the Boys and Girls Club be added to the end of the agenda. No objections were heard.

District Counsel Neary asked for a brief closed session at the end of the meeting to discuss Existing Litigation: Brooktrails Township CSD vs. Lawrence L. White. Director Orth made a motion to add the closed session, seconded by Director Monteleone. A roll call vote on the motion was taken as follows:

AYES: Directors: Whitney, Monteleone, Orth, Estabrook

NOES: Directors: None

ABSENT: Directors: Venturi

Motion Carried.

D. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS

June 12, 2001

Director Orth asked that a sentence be added to the third from the bottom paragraph on page 3167 as follows: "He also asked that the written materials provided by Bill Barksdale be attached to the Board's comments." He then made a motion to approve the minutes of June 12, 2001 as amended, seconded by Director Monteleone. The motion was passed unanimously by the members present.

June 26, 2001

With regards to item number 9 on page 3174, President Estabrook recalled a statement made regarding the scheduling of an agenda item prior to the next focus meeting to discuss topics and speakers. After a brief discussion, Director Orth suggested adding the sentence "The Board members concurred to hold a future agenda item before the focus meeting to discuss topics and speakers." Director Whitney asked that the sentence "Director Whitney asked that the meeting be titled "Greenbelt Management" be added at the end of the paragraph. Director Orth made a motion to approve the minutes of June 26, 2001 as amended. The motion was seconded by Director Whitney and passed unanimously by the members present.

E. SPECIAL PRESENTATION

Deferred pending Dr. Gitlin's arrival.

F. PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED RATES AND FEES ADJUSTMENTS

General Manager Chapman began with a direct statement to the audience explaining the justification for the rate increases. He pointed out the length of the water and sewer lines, the number of water tanks, the upgrades needed at the water treatment plant and the various assets of the District which are beyond their useful life. He stated his goal of being able to set aside reserves to upgrade the equipment and increase the plant capacity. He provided a review of the reserve study, and reported on the costs which will be incurred as a result of the sewer treatment plant upgrades at the City of Willits. He also explained the corrective procedures which he used to allocate wages and benefits to the proper funds. He answered questions from the audience concerning the difference between user fees and connection fees.

Topics of concern raised by audience members included appropriateness of the loan from the sewer fund to the golf fund, what the rate increases would generate, and where the money would be spent.

In response to concern that the increases would be adopted regardless of public comment, President Estabrook explained that the Board had been discussing the proposed increases at public meetings for several months. He explained that any change in the proposed rates would require a re-noticing of the rates and fees by mail, publication in the newspaper, and the scheduling of another public hearing forty five days in advance. He voiced concern that failure to adopt the proposed rates would be putting the District at risk

Director Orth explained the justification for the large increase in the monthly sewer rate, and answered concerns about the funds expended during the Specific Plan process.

In response to concerns raised by Dick Robie, of Cobb Drive, General Manager Chapman clarified that he does not have reserves in the budget for relining of the sewer lines, as done by the City of Willits. District Architect Bob Axt explained that the City of Willits' system was built out of a type of clay pipe which was not used in the District.

The question was raised whether the availability of funds through government programs such as the energy commission for upgrades to assist with conservation, and zero interest loans, had been researched. Director Orth pointed out that a percentage match is required for such programs, and by building reserves the District would have matching funds available to better qualify for such programs.

Maria Bates of Spring Creek asked for the top priorities for the reserves. President Estabrook summarized the discussions of the Finance Committee the previous year concerning the status of the infrastructure of the water system. He noted that having some cash in reserves would reduce the amount of principal borrowed, and provide leverage for other types of funding.

Chris Brown, of Bear Drive, spoke in favor of basing the sewer rate on a percentage of water usage as opposed to a flat fee.

Walter Abrahamson, asked the Board to continue the matter and explore options for funding that would allow people on fixed incomes to continue to be homeowners.

Maria Bates voiced concern about the loan from the Sewer Fund to the Golf Fund, noting that past transactions have resulted in a loss of trust in the Board by the members of the public. She commented that all residents are suffering from increases in other costs, as well.

John Tattum resident since 1967 pointed out the large amount of money spent on planning. He spoke in favor of the golf course borrowing from the bank to repay the Sewer Fund. He asked that options be explored for proving fire services through CDF, and questioned the need for the ambulance service.

Bob Axt complimented the General Manager for his work on the budget. He pointed out that fees in Brooktrails are lower than in many other areas, and spoke against the sewer fee based on percentage of water use.

Winnie Newman voiced concern about the effect of the increases on residents living on fixed incomes.

Carol Alty thanked the Board members for their work. She asked for clarification of the requirements for public hearings and reiterated the effect of increases on low income residents.

Philip Alpern spoke against the amount of the proposed increase in the sewer rate, and asked the Board to defer the matter. He cautioned them that past Boards are remembered for their mistakes.

Jack Baker pointed out that rates had gone up in 1999 and 2000, and spoke against raising rates again in 2001.

Director Orth pointed out the value of the Specific Plan, of securing the water rights of the District, and of having safe clean water to drink. He assured the audience that the Board would do everything they can to obtain low cost funding whenever available.

Director Monteleone expressed frustration that public input was not received at prior budget meetings, and encouraged the audience members to participate in the meetings, including the Recreation and Finance Committees. She provided a brief explanation of the revenue sources available to the District, and pointed out the efforts made by the Board to encourage conservation.

Director Whitney spoke in favor of continuing the matter to the next meeting. He suggested options for a low income rate be explored, and encouraged the use of graywater systems. He provided an outline of the various innovative ideas researched by the District, such as hydro-power, the Transpiration Redwood Forest System proposed by Ed Burton, and the energy alliance being formed by BPOA. He also spoke in favor of researching options for the sewer rate, based partly on usage. In response to Director Whitney's inquiry, District Counsel Neary provided guidance as to the legal requirements for noticing rates and fees, and offered to provide a legal opinion on the issue of establishing a low income rate.

President Estabrook spoke against continuing the matter, out of concern that it would put the District in potential financial trouble. He commented that the basic responsibility of the Board is to make sure that the District provides water to each house, takes sewer away, and provides adequate fire protection. In response to the comment that the rate increases were not in the community's best interest, he countered that letting the funds go into the red would not be in the community's best interest.

Pointing out that the current Board is the most progressive Board he has seen, he encouraged the audience members to share their ideas, for incorporation into the rates and fees for the following year. He reviewed the provisions of Proposition 218 which prohibit inter-fund transfers.

Director Orth suggested a community congress be held next year early in the budget process to receive public input.

General Manager Chapman expressed his appreciation to the Finance Committee for their input in the budget process. He stressed that the with proposed increase, the sewer fund would simply break even, and reiterated the problems caused by delaying rate increases and the resulting negative cash flow.

Director Orth made a motion to adopt Resolution No. 2001-15, a Resolution Repealing Resolution No. 2000-30 and Establishing Rates and Charges for Water and Sewer Utility Connections and Services. The motion was seconded by President Estabrook.

Director Whitney commented that he would not support the motion, as he preferred to wait two weeks on items 3a and 3b in the resolution, the monthly service charges for water and sewer, and have a detailed workshop at the next Board meeting to discuss options.

Director Monteleone reiterated the concern that any change to the proposed rates would result in a delay of several months. She agreed that a low income rate and a sewer rate based on usage should be looked into, and asked that it be done soon, not put off until the following July.

President Estabrook called for a vote on the motion which was taken as follows:

AYES: Directors: Monteleone, Orth, Estabrook

NOES: Directors: Whitney

ABSENT: Directors: Venturi

Resolution No. 2001-15 Adopted.

Director Orth made a motion that the Board investigate a low income tier for water and sewer rates, and a sewer rate based on usage, to be presented to the public at a meeting in January. Director Monteleone suggested it be done sooner. Director Orth amended his motion, requesting that the information be presented to the public at a Board meeting as soon as staff time allows. The motion was seconded by President Estabrook and passed unanimously by the members present.

President Estabrook asked for a motion to Adopt Resolution No. 2001-16, a Resolution Repealing Resolution No. 2000-31 and Establishing Rates and Charges for Architectural Review Services. Director Orth stated "I'll so move." The motion was seconded by Director Monteleone, and the vote was taken as follows:

AYES: Directors: Whitney, Monteleone, Orth, Estabrook

NOES: Directors: None

ABSENT: Directors: Venturi

Resolution No. 2001-16 Adopted.

President Estabrook then asked for a motion to Adopt Resolution No. 2001-17, a Resolution Repealing Resolution No. 2000-32 and Establishing Fees and Charges for Fire and Ambulance Services. Director Whitney seconded the motion, and the vote was taken as follows:

AYES: Directors: Whitney, Monteleone, Orth, Estabrook

NOES: Directors: None

ABSENT: Directors: Venturi

Resolution No. 2001-17 Adopted.

E. SPECIAL PRESENTATION - DR. ROB GITLIN

Noting that the Board had not yet seen Dr. Gitlin's new proposal, President Estabrook asked that Dr. Gitlin provide an outline for the Board's information, and that an action agenda item be scheduled for a future meeting.

Dr. Gitlin commented that the main reason he is making this proposal is because of the passage of Ordinance No. 116, and clarified that he is in no way waiving his rights to appeal the provisions of the ordinance.

He read aloud the proposed mitigations to his Use Permit Application, copies of which were provided to the Board members and General Manager as follows:

I a.

Applicant is willing to restrict long term residential use permit of the 20 unit structure to supervised groups, senior housing and staff for up to18 months, after which time applicant may determine that this restriction is no longer economically feasible and a rehearing with the Zoning Administrator to open up additional long term residential uses may take place.

b. Transient (less than 30 day) occupation will be allowed in all 40 units.

c. The 20 separated dwelling units will be used for unrestricted long term occupancy with possible future use intent for supervised groups, seniors and staff housing, as well, if economically viable.

II a.
Applicant will remain available to the General Manager at least annually to review any BTCSD concerns of residents in facilities.

b. The concerns about the residential unit sizes are mitigated to the BTCSD by the above restrictions; as the need for senior housing, supervised groups, visit serving and staff housing will be met.

III. Development Review. Any further development review will be mitigated through water/sewer application process.

IV. Applicant understands that BTCSD has authority to waive some of the water/sewer requirements and seeks the following:

a. Sewers- Sewer service may be evaluated by the BTCSD. The existing system is currently adequate for proposed uses, and interconnections can be maintained.

b. Water- District could work with the applicant to see that one water meter is installed for each of the 20 separate residential dwelling units.

c. There will be no connection fees since the services are existing.

d. The 20 unit structure would maintain one commercial meter.

e. After pressure testing is adequate, water meters will be placed on each separate

dwelling unit, and cost will be born by applicant. BTCSD will make every effort to maintain cost at a minimum.

V. Applicant will continue to seek to comply with all fire related issues concerned with the project.

VI. This use permit supplement poses to meet the intention of the Specific Plan policies.

Director Orth commented that the letter had answered many of his concerns. He thanked Dr. Gitlin for coming.

Director Whitney suggested that the Board take the letter into consideration and that staff and the Board develop a response letter, which would be copied to the County. He complimented Dr. Gitlin for his perseverance and for the work he had done to the property to date.

Director Monteleone voiced concern about supporting long-term residential use for the property, pointing out past problems and the fact that the use permit would go with the property if it were sold. She voiced strong support for the senior assisted housing proposal, and reiterated the requirement for Design Review. She pointed out that the property is three legal parcels, and by District Ordinance only one meter is allowed per parcel. She felt it was inappropriate to approve the addition of 40 long term housing units on the property without charging connection fees, while raising the water and sewer rates for the rest of the residents. She also voiced concern about the square footage of the motel units, and the term "supervised groups."

General Manager Chapman encouraged the Board to reach a compromise with Dr. Gitlin, pointing out some positive aspects of the proposal.

President Estabrook expressed appreciation to Dr. Gitlin for his willingness to consider a restriction, and for recognizing the authority of the Board. He agreed that the restriction was too loose, as it was dependant upon the applicant's determination, and suggested provisions be considered that would give the Board more power over what goes on, such as conditional water approval. He, also, was uneasy about the 20 proposed unrestricted long term units. He pointed out that the need for senior housing is spelled out in the Specific Plan, and was a community decision. He suggested thought be given to the suggestion that seniors received housing in exchange for their lot, or that for every unit not restricted to senior housing, a lot elsewhere in the District be purchased by Dr. Gitlin and donated to the District to retire a potential water connection. As to connection fees, he agreed with Director Monteleone that funds are needed to pay for future development. He stated that he would be more willing to compromise if the project were a community benefit, such as senior housing. As to the use permit going with the property, he felt that the County could issue a conditional use permit.

Director Orth reiterated his commitment to assisting in the restoration of the property in any way he could, and felt that the letter presented by Dr. Gitlin was a step in the right direction.

In response to Director Monteleone's concern about the statement "Any further development review will be mitigated through water/sewer application process," Dr. Gitlin explained that he had already gone through the Design Review process, and that the only other development that will be occurring on the property would be around water and sewer. District Architect Axt clarified the items reviewed by him as a result of the Design Review application, such as paint colors, remodel, and repairs primarily, commenting that he was under the impression at the time that senior assisted living was the goal for the property.

District Counsel Neary reminded the Board that development review is limited to the three criteria that are set forth in the Development Review Ordinance; exterior changes requiring a building permit, cutting down trees, and grading. The use is a County zoning matter. District Architect Axt commented that if the units are converted to unrestricted long-term use, the square footage would become an element. District Counsel offered to provide an opinion on the square footage issue, as it relates to senior assisted housing units.

Director Monteleone reiterated her concern about unrestricted long term housing for the motel units, and re-stated her support for senior assisted housing. She pointed out that the phrase "up to 18 months" could be for as little as 2 weeks.

Director Whitney reiterated his commitment to seeing the project happen, and offered his support at the County process. He suggested the square footage issue be considered further once the opinion is received from District Counsel. He pointed out the importance of not discouraging Dr. Gitlin, who he considered to be the most reasonable land owner to date. He agreed that the words "up to" should be struck from item IA, and that the term "supervised groups" should be specifically defined.

Director Orth suggested the Board consider an impact fee as an option if connection fees are waived.

President Estabrook asked that the Board members to submit their written comments on the letter, including suggested language, to the General Manager, so that he can compile them for discussion at the next Board meeting.

Director Orth moved to extend the meeting to 11:30 p.m. The motion passed unanimously by the members present.

Dr. Gitlin commented that during the public hearing on rates and fees the Board asked the community to trust them, yet they won't trust a member of the community that is trying to do something good. With regards to item IC of his letter, he pointed out that the 20 dwelling units referred to are "grandfathered in" by the County, and if a meter is put on each unit, he will be paying approximately $40 per unit per month, $800 per month, or $10,000 per year in additional revenues to the District. The other points Dr. Gitlin made were that in his letter he had tried to answer the Board's concerns raised in the letter that was sent to the County, the process had started a year and a half ago, and that he did not intend to go through the use permit process without the Board's support. Also, on one hand the Board is asking him to pay for a water meter for a single family residence, but on the other hand it is asking that it be allowed to restrict who lives there.

Maria Bates asked for clarification of how Dr. Gitlin's project would impact the District's goals of water conservation and its ability to provide the historical level of service. Director Orth provided an explanation of the rational for separate meters under the current tier system, and the clarified the provisions of the District's permit from the State Health Department which limits the number of hookups allowed to the existing system.

Director Whitney advised Dr. Gitlin to work with the General Manager to determine historical water usage at the Lodge when it was operational, which may be helpful in his argument with regards to water use.

Ginger Pohlson voiced agreement with Director Monteleone, pointing out that the Board will be held accountable for what happens at the Lodge in the future. She advised waiving fees only for senior housing units, and suggested that mitigation measures be handled on an individual basis.

G. PUBLIC COMMENTS

None

H. ACTION AGENDA

2. CONSIDERATION OF A LETTER IN SUPPORT OF THE STATE PARKS AND RECREATION GRANT APPLICATION BY WILLITS SKATE PARK ASSOCIATION

Committee Member Jennifer Poole provided an update on the recent fund raising activities of the Willits Skate Park Association. She reported that the association hoped to break ground on the skate park project in the summer of 2002, and that it would be located on land owned by the City of Willits which was the site of the old trap shooting range. She explained that the association was seeking support for their grant application for funds available from the state Department of Parks and Recreation as a result of Proposition 12 . She provided a draft letter for the Board's consideration.

Director Orth made a motion to approve the letter, seconded by Director Monteleone. Director Whitney asked that the forth paragraph end after "alternative for teens", to give the letter a more positive tone. Director Monteleone suggested that reference to the tennis courts be removed.

President Estabrook clarified that there are approximately 1000 children under 19 in Brooktrails, and that the population is approximately 3700, and suggested inserting those numbers where indicated. Director Orth agreed to amend his motion to include the proposed changes. Director Monteleone amended her second, and a vote was taken which passed unanimously by the members present.

3. RE-HEARING OF AN APPEAL BY LACE MAY JR. TO THE GENERAL MANAGER'S DECISION TO DENY HIS APPLICATION FOR WATER AND SEWER SERVICE FROM THE DISTRICT

District Counsel Neary provided a brief history of Mr. May's use permit application and the District's subsequent denial for a second residential water and sewer connection to his parcel on Buckeye Road. He explained that Mr. May's attorney, Tom Johnson, requested a rehearing of the matter. He provided a review of the items outlined in a brief prepared by Mr. Johnson, suggesting that the Board accept items number 1,3,4,5,7,9, and 11 as presented. As to item number 2 regarding assessments for water and sewer he suggested the reports on water availability and sewer standby dating back to 1994 be provided as a matter of notice. As to the request for the Planning and Building Service file, he pointed out that it was not in the control of the District and suggested it be deleted. As to number 8, he suggested the District take notice of the Mendocino County Assessor's map, and in response to the request for water and sewer capacity studies, he suggested that it be deleted and replaced with the Specific Plan. He summarized the remainder of Mr. Johnson's brief, noting his disagreement with the statement that Mr. May's property is two parcels, as he believed it was one. He stated his opinion that the vested rights doctrine does not apply to this case, and reiterated his belief that Ordinance No. 116 is not in violation of the provisions of state law.

Mr. Johnson took the podium and, noting the lateness of the hour, asked the Board to consider in the future accommodating his client, and other applicants, that have to pay attorneys and other professionals to be present at a meeting.

He asked that the Board take notice of all of the items listed in his brief. Regarding item number 2, he asked for the reports dating back to 1978 regarding assessments for water and sewer.

He stated that Mr. May had applied to the County for a use permit to operate a cottage industry on the property, and was willing to withdraw that application if he were granted a second water and sewer connection. He noted that Mr. May has paid assessment for water and sewer availability since the 1970's, and felt that he has vested rights for connections which he has paid for. He noted the size of the parcel, 2.3 acres, and the fact that it does not fall within the confines of the provisions of Ordinance No. 116, reading a portion of the ordinance as follows, "WHEREAS, most of the District's 6,605 parcels, being approximately one-third an acre in size, are insufficient in size to permit development of more than one residential structure." Also, he felt that the Ordinance was clearly in violation of state law that allows every citizen in the state to have two residences on their property, and read aloud an excerpt from the state law.

He asked that Mr. May be granted relief from section 1-102, based on special circumstances as follows, 1) Mr. May and previous property owners have paid standby assessments, 2) the parcel is exceptionally large, and 3) by the language of the ordinance, it was not intended to affect this parcel, as it is not a typical parcel. He thanked the Board for its consideration.

Director Whitney thanked Mr. May and Mr. Johnson for their patience. In response to Director's Whitney's inquiry, Mr. Johnson clarified that if granted a second connection, without any other conditions, Mr. May would withdraw his use permit application and not seek to have a cottage industry on his property.

Director Whitney reviewed the boundary line adjustment that resulted in the three parcels becoming one legal parcel, noting that the resulting parcel was split across the Community Services District boundary, and questioned the legality of the merger. Because Brooktrails was not noticed of the merger, he felt that the property owner should have brought any error in assessments to the District's attention. He voiced concern about the available connections under the District's current Health Department permit, and the impact of a second connection on a residential parcel.

Director Orth reported that LAFCO, also, was not notified about the boundary line adjustment that essentially resulted in the third parcel being annexed into the District, and that they were in the process of reviewing the matter. He noted that each year there is a noticed public hearing on the standby assessments to give property owners the opportunity to bring any errors to the attention of the Board. He suggested that the Board enter into negotiations with Mr. May to mitigate some of the issues and to obtain a dedicated easement across the unfinished portion of Ridge Road.

President Estabrook recommended denial of the appeal, based on the applicability of Ordinance No. 116, and suggested the possibility of a variance under negotiations.

Director Monteleone asked for clarification of Mr. May's plans for the building if he were to withdraw his use permit application. Mr. Johnson replied that Mr. May was unsure at this point what he would build, but that he would have to go to the County for approval of a building permit, and would not be asking for any additional exceptions or variances. Director Monteleone voiced concern that Mr. May would conduct his cottage industry without a use permit, a remark that Mr. Johnson found insulting.

Mr. Johnson commented that there is an existing easement across the property, and that Mr. May would be willing to extend that easement to the District.

Director Whitney made a motion to continue the hearing, and to continue the dialog with Mr. May to work out a compromise before the next Board meeting. The motion was seconded by Director Orth.

President Estabrook voiced concern about continuing the hearing, as opposed to denying the appeal, based on the validity of Ordinance No. 116, as he was concerned about setting precedence. He stated his preference to go through the variance process.

District Counsel Neary provided guidance as to the options available to the Board. He commented that if the Board were to reach a compromise with Mr. May, it would be his recommended that the matter come back as the Board acting under section 1-102, a relief of the ordinance, as opposed to a finding that the ordinance did not apply.

Comments were received from Jacob Vliestra, who spoke against the cottage industry, and Mike Aplet,.who voiced concern about limited water connections.

A vote was taken on the motion which passed unanimously by the members present.

4. DISCUSSION OF REVISED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION AND STAMP

Deferred.

5. CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 1993-24 TO AMEND THE TERMS OF THE LOAN FROM THE SEWER FUND TO THE GOLF FUND TO A THIRTY-YEAR TERM.

Deferred.

6. ANNUAL REVIEW OF DISTRICT INVESTMENT POLICY

Deferred.

7. CONSIDERATION OF A LETTER TO GOVERNOR GRAY DAVIS IN SUPPORT OF FUNDS FOR THE BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB

Director Orth moved to approve the letter, as written. The motion was seconded by Director Whitney and passed unanimously by the members present.

I. SPECIAL REPORTS - GENERAL MANAGER

None

J. PUBLIC COMMENTS

None

K. ADJOURNMENT

Director Orth moved to adjourn to closed session at 11:58 p.m. The meeting of July 10, 2001 was adjourned at 12:10 a.m., July 11, 2001.

RICHARD ESTABROOK
President

MICHAEL V. CHAPMAN
Secretary to the Board of Directors